PLAYING
For every definition of lesbianism as a political identity there existed a well- reasoned argument, that combined strategy to embrace political lesbianism as well as genuine belief, that love between women had much greater potential for mutuality and equality than love between women and men. Such arguments were made by women who had long-identified as lesbian as well as women who found that their newfound feminist consciousness awakened a strong sexual and romantic desire for other women. The political implications of lesbianism aside, then, participation in the feminist movement offered myriad openings for women to experiment with lesbianism as an alternative to heterosexual and to assert the validity of love between women. Throughout the 1970s, questions and concerns regarding what authentic love between women would look like shaped lesbian feminist dialogues, which often focused on issues of becoming lesbian, bisexuality, and butch/femme role-playing.
The argument that loving women was more authentic than loving men was often embedded in arguments aimed to deconstruct the idea that heterosexuality was natural. Though second-wave feminists were concerned with ideals of gender specific to post- World War II America, their theories often placed the origins of women’s subordination within the emergence of Western civilization and the division of labor according to sex
104
centuries earlier.66 Sex role conditioning was so deeply engrained as to seem natural. Many lesbian feminists believed that in actuality, women were naturally programmed to find happiness in relationship to one another (more so than with men). According to the lesbian feminist “Parable of the Mothers and Daughters,” men in positions of power had consciously cultivated the idea that love between women was unnatural and that they nefariously “wrote in their books that women must hate, fight and betray each other for the favor of men.” Contemporary homophobia perpetuated the idea that lesbianism was perverse; however, many lesbian feminists believed that women’s liberation would undo this social-conditioning that told women to favor men and allow their inherent
proclivities to love other women resurface.67
Most lesbian (and radical) feminists believed that humans had the natural capacity to love either sex, and that in a truly egalitarian society, sexuality would be fluid. As one lesbian feminist, Marilyn Murphy, succinctly put it: “Women as independent persons will be free to love men if we choose” but “we will be free also to not love them.” Because feminism offered women this choice—to love or to not love men—it became
66 Many second-wave feminist articulated this view, including Ti-Grace Atkinson, Shulamith Firestone, Kate Millett, and Robin Morgan. See Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (New York: Links Books, 1974); Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, trans. H.M. Parshley, reprint. (New York: Vintage Books, 1989); Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1970); Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1969); Robin Morgan, ed., Sisterhood is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from the Women's Liberation Movement (New York: Vintage Books, 1970).
67 Florence Rush, “The Parable of the Mothers and Daughters,” in Amazon Expedition: A Lesbian
Feminist Anthology, ed. Phyllis Birkby et al. (Washington, NJ: Times Change Press, 1973), 5. See also Sidney Abbot and Barbara Love, “Is Women's Liberation a Lesbian Plot?,” in Radical Feminism: A Documentary Reader, ed. Barbara A. Crow (New York: New York University Press, 2000); Sidney Abbot and Barbara Love, Sappho Was a Right-On Woman: A Liberated View of Lesbianism (New York: A Scarborough Book, 1972); “Love Each Other, Love Ourselves: Lesbians Unite!,” Carton 2, Folder 59, Charlotte Bunch Papers, Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University; “Lesbians Uniting;” Gay Women's Liberation, “Statement of Gay Women's Liberation;” M. Altman, “Is Heterosexuality 'Natural'?” 1969, Box S10, "Women's Rights Movement, 1968-1969 and n.d.," Kate Millett Papers, Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Duke University.
105
exponentially more important for all feminists to see lesbianism as an equally legitimate option. As Murphy explained “without woman-loving as a real and positive alternative, to choose to not love men is to choose a loveless life—not a pleasant prospect for most women to contemplate.” Without that freedom of choice, heterosexual relationships would “continue to incorporate the sexist coerciveness . . . in spite of the sincere efforts of women and men to be free in relationship with each other.”68
Most lesbian feminists believed that patriarchy made it impossible for women and men to experience equality in their interpersonal relationships with one another. For one, there could be no equality in loving relationships between women and men until men learned to love women as equals—which they argued few men were willing to acknowledge or undertake since the power dynamic in loving relationships typically worked in their favor. As Ginny Berson of The Furies explained, “few, if any, men raised in this society can rid themselves of the sexism which is reinforced every day by a society which rewards men simply because they are men.”69 Leading lesbian feminist thinkers Sidney Abbot and Barbara Love concurred, explaining that women were conditioned to “wait, accept, and succumb” to “personal domination in heterosexual love
relationships.”70 They elaborated:
Love between equals provides the most fulfilling relationship. Anything short of equality in a love relationship is destructive, as one person usually gives always and lacks fulfillment. That one is almost invariably the woman. Total love is total vulnerability and unselfishness and should allow both parties to receive maximum pleasure. A mutual giving and taking provides a mutual renewal. If a woman
68 Marilyn Murphy, “Sisterhood is Painful 'Opps' I Mean Powerful or What's All the Fuss About the Lesbian Issue,” 1976, 4-5 and 7, Box 31, Folder 518, Noel Phyllis Birkby Papers, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, Northampton, Mass.
69 Ginny Berson, “Reformism: The Politics of Ostriches,” Motive (1972): 48. 70 Abbot and Love, “Is Women's Liberation a Lesbian Plot?,” 322.
106
always gives emotionally, which is her accepted role—in and out of love-making— her emotions are not replenished.71
That it was virtually impossible for women and men to share authentic love within the existing social order was a common refrain in lesbian feminist writings during the 1970s.
Despite a general sense of doom regarding the future of heterosexual intimacy, Abbot and Love suggested that feminists had good reason to hope for something more: “An equal experience is an enrichment shared by two lovers; this can be two women who instinctively know each other’s needs and honor them.”72 A lesbian feminist from Ann
Arbor, Michigan, who explained that women had greater potential for a “true love relationship” with other women because their interactions were not riddled with stifling gender hierarchies, echoed this sentiment. “The possibilities of getting out of that maze,” she argued, was “much greater in homosexual relationships—where the entire framework of relating [was] different.”73 Another lesbian feminist from the Ann Arbor group pointed
out that lesbians were “not half of a heterosexual relationship, we are whole people and can have full relationships.”74 The choice between heterosexual relationships based on “power, dominance, role play and oppression” versus lesbian relationships based on mutuality, Rita Mae Brown, insisted was “obvious.”75
71 Ibid. 72 Ibid.
73Purple Star: Journal of Radicalesbians, Spring 1971, 2, Carton 2, Folder 60, Charlotte Bunch Papers, 1950-1988, Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University.
74 “Up From SDS -- Why We Split,” Purple Star: Journal of Radicalesbians 1, no. 1 (Spring 1971): 14, 2, Charlotte Bunch Papers, 1950-1988, Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University.
75 Rita Mae Brown, “The Shape of Things to Come,” in Lesbianism and the Women's Movement , ed. Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch (Baltimore: Diana Press, 1975), 70-71.
107
Partly because of the enticing prospect that lesbian relationships might offer greater romantic and sexual fulfillment than heterosexual relationships, a number of women “became” lesbians by way of their involvement in the women’s liberation movement. On the one hand, feminism created an atmosphere of toleration and acceptance that
empowered them to “come out” as lesbians. This included women who had been closeted to varying degrees, such as women who had lived privately as lesbians but kept their sexuality secret for fear of being ostracized or job discrimination and women who had tried to “pass” as straight. This was especially the case for the women who pioneered the lesbian feminist movement upon their growing recognition of their marginalization in both feminist and gay circles. On the other hand, many previously straight women “became” (some temporarily, some permanently) lesbian by way of their participation in the women’ s liberation movement. This group of lesbian feminists especially
demonstrated the broader fluidity of sexuality and emotional intimacy that characterized the second wave as well as the underlying complications revolving around feminist efforts to confront the problems of romantic love.76
It was not coincidental that so many women experimented with becoming lesbian around this time. The Lavender Menace Zap action and the emergence of multiple vocal and visible lesbian feminist enclaves thereafter lent a feeling of authority and legitimacy to the idea of women loving women. That development also occurred as the women’s liberation movement was really gaining momentum. Many women were increasingly
76 Amy Kesselman, who was active in the Chicago Women’s Liberation Movement and is now a historian, recently commented on the fluidity of “coming out” and “becoming” lesbian amidst the second wave. Amy Kesselman, “Coming Out, Coming In, and 'Be-Coming': Lesbians and the Women's Liberation Movement in New Haven, Connecticut” (presented at the 124th Annual Meeting of the American
108
dedicating more and more time to their feminist work, participating in consciousness- raising sessions, and sometimes living communally with other women. Impassioned by their dedication to the movement and experiencing a heightened awareness of personal politics and gender oppression, it was not surprising that a number of women began to view one another in a new light. Many “becoming” narratives of the second wave, which were circulated in feminist journals and anthologies, ranging from underground
mimeographs to more professional publications, focused on how this broader milieu left them open to exploring same-sex love.
A common theme in narratives of becoming lesbian involved overcoming fears of homosexuality. One woman, for instance, focused on how her confidence in political lesbian as a necessary measure clashed with her fear of being “clumsy and ignorant” about lesbian sex. Overcoming her fears, she marveled at the joy she experienced in loving another woman: “I was one individual whole person and she was a different individual whole person and we were loving without trying to obliterate that integrity through possession or control.”77 Another woman expressed a similar difficulty in connecting her political lesbianism with the actual practice of loving women. Though fully committed to the ideals of lesbian separatism—so much so that the collective she belonged to called her an “honorary lesbian”—Marilyn Murphy feared that she would have to remain loveless after having sworn off of men. Much to her delight, however, she soon found herself “wildly and passionately in love with a woman.” “The lesbian
consciousness I’d developed because of the books and articles written by lesbians and
77 Women's Press Collective, ed., “A Letter From Mary,” in Lesbians Speak Out (San Francisco, 1970), 51, Carton 2, Folder 68, Charlotte Bunch Papers, Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University.
109
because of my close friendships with lesbians” she explained, “allowed me to experience the joys that accompany loving a woman without any anguished self-questioning or doubts.”78
Becoming narratives also appeared in mass-produced feminist novels that reached a much wider audience. Marge Piercy’s Small Changes (1972), which offered serious and empathetic depiction of separatism,79 portrayed lesbian relationships as the least
problematic romantic formulation for women. The character of Beth in Piercy’s novel experiences a classic lesbian becoming. After fleeing from a disastrously oppressive marriage, Beth experiments with casual sex with men, dabbles in a same-sex fling, becomes celibate, and lives in a women’s commune all en route to finding mutual, authentic love with another woman.80
Feminist writer Alix Kates Shulman likewise memorialized the process of
becoming lesbian in her 1978 novel Burning Questions. In her own life, Shulman sought equality in heterosexual relationships through her advocacy of marriage contracts that ensured equality. Her novel offered an insider’s perspective on the complex realities of love and liberation on the front lines of feminist activism.81 Written as a novel within a novel, Burning Questions followed the story of Zane as she journeys towards feminism
78 Marilyn Murphy, “Can a Heterosexual Woman Ever be a Dyke?,” 1976, 2, Box 31, Folder 518, Noel Phyllis Birkby Papers, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, Northampton, Mass.
79 Marge Piercy’s Small Changes is also discussed in relationship to theories regarding celibacy in chapter one.
80 Marge Piercy, Small Changes (New York: Fawcett Crest, 1972).
81 Alix Kates Shulman was a participant in early women’s liberation movement groups and the author of several bestsellers, including Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen. During the 1970s, she frequently advocated that feminists who married make their own marriage contracts and gave the example of her own contract with her husband. Her personal papers at Duke University chronicle the wide range of media outlets and feminist publications that addressed this topic. See Alix Kates Shulman Papers, Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Duke University.
110
by way of the Beat generation. Zane’s story symbolized the transformation of the discontented and reluctant housewife who realizes her true potential and passion in the women’s liberation movement. Singularly dedicated to her feminist collective and sympathetic to the politics of lesbianism, Zane had not contemplated the possibility of a lesbian relationship despite feeling dissatisfied in her marriage and in extramarital affairs with other men. But all of that changed when Zane and her friend Faith found themselves unexpectedly in love with one another. Both were surprised to discover that the
experience of loving a woman was different than that of loving men. For Zane, the key difference was that she and Faith started from a position of equality: “Not starting out the same, of course. We had different lives and histories, different weaknesses and strengths. But for all our differences, we still started out equal in a way it was impossible for any man and woman, carrying within themselves all the weighty historical differences of the sexes, ever to be.”82
Zane’s relationship with Faith eventually ended and, as it turned out, her becoming lesbian was not absolute. Though fully open to the possibility of sexual and loving relationships with women, the novel ended with Zane’s assertion that feminism had the potential to open possibilities for same-sex love as well as to engender more equitable relationships between women and men. Although she concluded that “love is still a vast mystery,” Zane believed that feminism had imbued her with the self-confidence to seek romantic relationship in tune with her own needs — whether heterosexual or lesbian. Zane’s story hinted at a persistent point of contention within lesbian feminist circles: that women who did not dedicate themselves singularly to lesbianism, but left open the possibility to love men, were often derided as fence-sitters who could not fully commit
111
one way or the other. Shulman deftly drew attention to this tension in a brief scene towards the end of Burning Questions, when one of Zane’s friends, Phyllis, confided in her that she had fallen in love with a man. “But, please Zane,” Phyllis pleaded, “for god’s sake don’t tell anyone. I’m afraid it doesn’t look good.”83 Phyllis’s fear that her return to heterosexuality would elicit the wrath of her feminist sisters spoke to the underlying tensions surrounding any given feminist’s level of commitment to lesbianism.
Bisexuality occupied an especially contested space within the framework of lesbian feminism during the 1970s. Women who “became” lesbian seemed problematic to
women who were lesbians regardless of their feminism. Raising questions of authenticity, many lesbians feared that straight women were merely experimenting with and
masquerading as lesbians for the duration because it seemed fun and exciting. Most political lesbian separatists argued that woman-identification would eliminate sex roles— which would also necessarily eliminate the categories of homosexuality and
heterosexuality.84 But as Karla Jay, a founding member of Radicalesbians later explained, “we did not equate this utopian ideal with bisexuality.” On the contrary, women who engaged in any form of intimate relationship with men still maintained heterosexual privilege, regardless of whether they identified politically as lesbian or had sex with women.85 Several years later, a member of The Furies explained that even though bisexuality was “human nature,” it thwarted the separatist cause because “the revolution
83 Ibid., 302.
84 Most political lesbian groups offered a variation of this argument, including Radicalesbians, The Furies, and Ti-Grace Atkinson.
112
has not happened yet.”86 After the revolution, bisexuality would become the norm, but until then, “real” political lesbians had to have sex with women or abstain all together.
Lesbians averse to bisexuality were also worried about unwittingly expending their energy on straight women who were only willing to halfway commit to lesbianism. For one thing, many lesbian feminists had been burned by straight women who were merely looking for a “Lesbian Experience” and saw lesbianism as a temporary alternative rather than a permanent solution.87 As Barbry explained on behalf of The Furies:
Every lesbian knows through personal experience how straight women sell us out. Each of us at some time has been infatuated with a straight woman and we
compromised ourselves, grovelled [sic] to be good to her and tried to prove to her that we were better than men, all in hopes that she would love us. Meanwhile she feminized us—kept us passive in intimidation, ashamed of ourselves, pretty, dangling, kissing up to her and very, very vulnerable. Whenever we were hurt she was too busy with the men in her life to help us out. If any man found her out, she told him that we were dirty and disgusting and had done horrible things to her. Then he ‘saved’ her and she paid him back by giving him a lifetime of service and free fucks. She had to betray us, because her interests were hanging on some man’s